2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MUHAMMAD NAS1R MAHFOOZ, J.

Through this single judgment we intend to dispose of titled writ petition as well as connected Writ Petitions Nos.573- M/2016 and 233-M/2017 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the three petitions.

2. As averred in the petition, certain posts for village council servants in BPS-1 were advertised by respondents Nos.3 and 4 for which the petitioners along with many others applied for the same and they were appointed by Deputy Commissioner Dir Lower, Director L.G.E and R.D.D. Dir Lower vide Notification No.2536-6995/Estab-II, 2015-16 RDD dated 30.06.2016 whereafter they were directed to appear before respondent No.5 for medical and to report to the Local Government Dir Lower. Amongst them, two of the petitioners appeared before respondent No.5 while the rest were waiting for obtaining their medical fitness certificates. On 04.07.2016 an office order was issued by the respondents whereby the appointment orders of the petitioners amongst other appointees were withheld with immediate effect till further orders and they were informed that respondents Nos.3 and 4 have passed another notification with fake date by showing respondents Nos.8 to 158 in the said notification recruited for the said posts, hence, the instant writ petition. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners heard and record perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that without issuing any show-cause notice their orders were withheld on 4.7.2016 and a fresh order was issued on 29.08.2016. Then a new corrigendum purported to be issued on 29.08.2016 and the posts already filled by petitioners were refilled through this last order.

4. Learned A.A.G and learned counsel for private respondents tried to controvert the contentions of petitioners but in vain.

5. The comments filed by official respondents and reply submitted by private respondents are also perused. An impression from its perusal is being created that some irregularities occurred during the appointment of petitioners and to cure and rectify those irregularities/mistakes the fresh appointment order was issued. It appears to be a sham exercise, first the initial order of appointment issued on 30.06.2016 was withheld on 4.7.2016 but no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners despite that their medical test also took place and again when on the same selection procedure a fresh appointment order was issued on 29.08.2016. It is as clear as daylight that the latter orders are manifestly illegal and void, not only because the principles of natural justice have not been followed but also because on political maneuvering the fresh appointment order was issued but with a colourful exercise that some of the original appointees did not belong to the same union councils.

6. The relevant rules prescribed are issued on 03.12.2015 wherein at serial No.20 relevant qualifications and criteria is provided for the post of Naib Qasid. It is a BPS-1 post of Naib Qasid with no minimum qualifications but must be physically sound and preferably literate having age between 18 to 40 years. Record shows that graduates and post graduates degree holders have applied for this post of BPS-1. This is the ultimate fruit of their hard struggle and hard work after getting education of 14 to 16 years and that too was undone with a single stroke of pen by respondent No.3 on the pretext of correcting a clerical mistake. The law settled by august Supreme Court is clear, that officials are legally required to follow the rules without being influenced by extraneous reasons and political expediency. It also requires to be noted that official respondents who have all the resources available at their command must ensure that the appointees fulfill the relevant criteria before their appointments and not to waste precious time by undoing the lawful work done, as in the present case. Such large numbers of appointments were made and the time it must have consumed ought to have been respected and honoured. Furthermore, the present petitioners who have moved this court have been made to run from pillar to post for getting a relief just for no fault on their part. This petition also remained pending for about one year. On 29.08.2016 the same day when the fresh appointment order was issued this petition came up for hearing and interim relief was granted and operation of the order dated 04.07.2016 was held in abeyance that remained in the field till date.

7. Consequent to the above, this writ petition along with connected writ petitions are allowed and the office order dated 04.07.2016 and the appointments made on 29.08.2016 are declared as without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. It is further directed to recheck the antecedents of all those who applied for the post within the prescribed time limit before 30.6.2016 and then issue fresh appointment orders after informing the concerned petitioners/applicants, but within a period of two months positively without fail. There shall be no order as to costs. ZC/391/P Petition allowed.